While I like the idea of having a collectives of distributed repository,
ie not centralized, in some cases, a centralized repository is
unavoidable.
I think what we need is a balance of both. A centralized repository is
probably very bad for scaling but you have control. A distributed
repositories infrastructure may scale but it is slightly chaotic.
Not all system needs to be centralized. A registry/directory for email
address for example can be distributed (and should be).
-James Seng
> Why is this assumption in place?
> One could (rightly) argue that the single largest cause of
> instability and scaleability is the insistance on using
> "A centralized ... repository". The problems with that
> tactic caused the original IR to segment into multiple
> regional IRs, each retaining/maintaining "A centralized
> repository". Its gotten worse with the addition of each new
> "routing database" & whois service by agency. Each presumes
> a single "centralized repository".
>
> I'd rather see a protocol to allow a composite, non authoritative
> structure be fabricated from collections of hundreds/thousands
> of broadly distributed attributes. That way I would own my
> data and be able to direct its distribution to/through others
> non-auth copies of my data.